A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants share each forest land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant forest”) according to the ratio of shares as stated in the separate sheet No. 2.

B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants did not agree on the method of dividing the pertinent forest land into common property.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiffs, co-owners of the forest of this case, may seek a partition of the forest of this case against the Defendants, who are other co-owners, pursuant to Article 269(1) of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, as to the method of partition, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the share ratio of the plaintiffs and the defendants to the forest of this case, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole purport of pleading are as follows: ① many co-owners of the forest of this case are 10 persons, so it is difficult to prepare a plan to divide the interests of co-owners; ② the ownership transfer claim is completed with respect to the shares of the defendant Eul; ② the shares of the defendant H are seized; ③ the plaintiffs' assertion of partition as stated in the Disposition No. 1, the defendant C, G, and J did not present a separate proposal against the partition of co-owned property itself; ③ the above defendants were present at the first date for pleading of this case and designated three months after the date for pleading in order to identify the selling place of the forest of this case. Accordingly, the above defendants did not attend at the second date for pleading designated three months thereafter; ④ The remaining Defendants D, E, F, I, and H did not present any opinion, as stated in the Disposition No. 1 of this case.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.